Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

The War on Cliché. (That’s Such a Cliché.)

By Jennifer B. McDonald April 22, 2010 3:00 pmApril 22, 2010 3:00 pm

Here at the Book Review, we argue about words. A lot. We argue with the stylebook. We argue with one another. We’ve had intense discussion about the worth of words like “famously” and “focus” and “saga” and “reveal” — and that’s just in the past couple of weeks. (Seriously: I can show you the scars.)

And of course we’re not the only ones. In recent months, several articles on clichés and banned words — in book reviews and otherwise — have been making the rounds. On March 28, Jan Freeman wrote a thoughtful article in The Boston Globe in response to news about a long list of words and phrases blacklisted by the chief executive of the Tribune Company. Earlier this month, Michelle Kerns at Examiner.com announced she’ll be conducting a yearlong study (talk about stamina), in which she plans to scour the book reviews of 20 publications, compare the “average number of clichés per 100 words for each publication,” and each month bestow a variety of “most clichéd” awards — a book review version of the Razzies. (This after posting her list of “top 20 most annoying book reviewer clichés.”)

Then there’s the other side: Last year, for example, James Parker wrote in praise of the cliché at Boston.com (and drew some amusing comments).

I was going to ignore these recent salvos. After all, two years ago, our own Bob Harris wrote a blog post called “Seven Deadly Words of Book Reviewing” that drew 267 comments from readers. We’ve had these arguments before. And we will continue to have them as long as there are books to read and reviews to be written (and edited).

For amusement’s sake, though, I shared the link about Kerns’s contest with my colleagues, expecting reactions mostly along the lines of “that’s nice” or “yeah — been there, done that.” But my e-mail drew some responses that I thought worth sharing.

One question was how to define what makes a “cliché.”

“Words can be overused, or used thoughtlessly,” said Barry Gewen, one of our editors, “but a cliché for me is a phrase that substitutes for a thought. The dictionary calls it ‘an expression or idea that has become trite.’ Individual words don’t become trite — except in a context.”

Jenny Schuessler, another editor, agrees that “sure, some words are overused — or come to seem that way if you read 20 book reviews at a shot.” (Let’s not pause too long to consider how this admission may affect your weekend reading.) But Schuessler disagrees that someone who “uses words like ‘subtle,’ ‘brilliant’ or ‘ambitious’ is guilty of some crime against language.”

Those words — and many words on “banned” lists — are basic descriptions. And there are only so many ways to reach for a description without falling into the “elongated yellow fruit” trap. “Part of my definition of bad writing,” Schuessler said, “is when people seem to have gone to their thesaurus to find some substitute for a perfectly normal word. … Though I do like it when people say ‘he ululated’ instead of ‘he said.’”

She agreed with Gewen, as did Harris, that what ought to concern readers, writers and editors most is not necessarily the overused words (we all get sick of “lyrical” and “compelling” and their ilk), but rather the intellectual laziness their overuse might signal. “The problem arises when reviewers start using tons of adjectives of blunt praise or blame, rather than trying to work through thoughts,” Schuessler said. “The words themselves aren’t the problem. The lack of ideas is.”

So how worthy a debate is this? Have “banned” lists and tirades against cliché themselves become cliché? (I’d say yes — but that doesn’t mean we’re going to stop arguing about them.)